|
For retired dependents to represent a continuously greater part of the population, doesn't that mean the fertility rate would have to keep falling too? There is the possibility that it levels out at a sub-replacement level, which would create a new steady-state population structure that's sort of the inverse of the one humanity has lived with for thousands of years, if not as skewed toward the elderly as it was for the very young. There is of course the possibility of medical technology keeping old people alive longer and longer, which would exacerbate the issue, though the cost issue could be solved by not struggling to keep people whose bodies are obviously failing alive just because we can't accept that death will catch up with us eventually. IIRC, end-of-life care is hugely expensive in terms of added longevity compared to pretty much anything else doctors can do. Add to that the quality of life in that extended life, and you wonder if those resources might not be better spend at the start of life, not the end. As for the point about shrinking the economy, I think that should be clarified to mean "shrinking the part of the economy which will actually have to pay for all the old people". More and more of the economy might simply become disconnected from the population at large, their contributions having been automated. Given enough automation, the economy could become completely independent of humanity.
|
#
¿
Dec 7, 2014 17:58
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 15, 2024 02:31 |
|